The Croydon Advertiser reports that Chief Inspector Phil Willis, in charge of Croydon town centre policing, has warned that neither Croydon council nor Arrowcroft are taking the terror threat arising from their misguided plans for the construction of an arena seriously.
Chief Insp Willis wrote to the planning inspector:
"This venue may be vulnerable to terrorist attack.
Croydon Police reiterate the need to work closely with the counter terrorist security advisor to ensure that this issue is fully addressed as the development progresses."
Arrowcroft seemingly is not obliged to liaise with the Met's security advisor, and no contact has been made with them.
Chief Insp Willis added:
"I was disappointed that most of the points made in previous submissions have not been included as conditions for the developers, or obligations under the planning scheme, or covered in response from the developers."
This provides further evidence, as if it were needed, that the arena scheme has not been properly thought through; it will fail.
Showing posts with label inquiry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label inquiry. Show all posts
Friday, 7 March 2008
Friday, 29 February 2008
Snafu
Further to my earlier article about the letter from Berwin Leighton Paisner (Arrowcroft's lawyers), informing me that the Secretary of State had extended the deadline for making representations in respect of Arrowcroft's further environmental submission from 15 February to 17 March.
It seems that Berwin Leighton Paisner have made a "snafu" in their letter. They refer to the revised deadline (17 March) twice. However, in the final paragraph in bold print they state:
"If you wish to make any representations on the further environmental information you should do so in writing to the Planning Inspectorate...before 15 February 2008..."
The 15th of February is of course the original deadline for submissions, and ten days before the date of the letter sent out by Berwin Leighton Paisner.
It seems that Berwin Leighton Paisner are prone to making errors and mistakes.
The question is, have they made any other errors and mistakes?
It seems that Berwin Leighton Paisner have made a "snafu" in their letter. They refer to the revised deadline (17 March) twice. However, in the final paragraph in bold print they state:
"If you wish to make any representations on the further environmental information you should do so in writing to the Planning Inspectorate...before 15 February 2008..."
The 15th of February is of course the original deadline for submissions, and ten days before the date of the letter sent out by Berwin Leighton Paisner.
It seems that Berwin Leighton Paisner are prone to making errors and mistakes.
The question is, have they made any other errors and mistakes?
Thursday, 28 February 2008
Letter To Hazel Blears
Submitted to Hazel Blears today:
"Right Honourable Hazel Blears MP
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Planning Division
Government Office for London
9th Floor, Riverwalk House
157-161 Millbank
LondonSW1P 4RR
28 February 2008
Dear Ms Blears,
Subject London Borough of Croydon (Gateway Site) Compulsory Purchase Order 2007
I have received a letter (dated 25 February 2008) from Berwin Leighton Paisner, solicitors for Arrowcroft Ltd, in respect of Arrowcroft’s further environmental information submitted to you on 24 January 2008. They state that the deadline for submitting objections to Arrowcroft’s revised/new data has been extended to 17 March 2008.
I wish to formally object that, despite the fact that the public inquiry into the CPO has officially ended, Arrowcroft are still being allowed to submit revised/altered information:
· This is outwith the time limit of the inquiry
· It is my, and indeed many other residents’, understanding that once the inquiry ended no further information could/should be submitted
· Berwin Leighton Paisner, Arrowcroft’s solicitors, are seemingly setting the timetable and deadlines for objections
· Berwin Leighton Paisner, and by definition Arrowcroft, appear to be acting on your behalf
· The additional information being submitted after the end of the inquiry, and onus to object to it, is confusing to the residents of Croydon (myself included) who are negatively impacted by Arrowcroft’s plans. We have no specific legal expertise, and trust you to act impartially.
I have the following questions:
1. Who is running this inquiry, you or Arrowcroft?
2. Given the ongoing bombardment of information and changes by Arrowcroft, how can lay people possibly keep track or indeed understand what is happening?
3. Given the ongoing changes of information and revised deadlines for objections, how can we possibly keep track of the process that is being followed by you in trying to come to a decision wrt the CPO?
4. Has the application been altered?
5. Why is Arrowcroft being allowed to set the deadlines?
In my opinion the independence and impartiality of the inquiry is being severely, and openly, compromised by Arrowcroft’s and Berwin Leighton Paisner’s actions.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you in advance.
Yours sincerely,
Ken Frost MA FCA FIPFM
Croydon Against The Arena
www.catarena.org
cc Deborah Tobin – Planning Inspectorate
Andrew Pelling MP"
"Right Honourable Hazel Blears MP
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Planning Division
Government Office for London
9th Floor, Riverwalk House
157-161 Millbank
LondonSW1P 4RR
28 February 2008
Dear Ms Blears,
Subject London Borough of Croydon (Gateway Site) Compulsory Purchase Order 2007
I have received a letter (dated 25 February 2008) from Berwin Leighton Paisner, solicitors for Arrowcroft Ltd, in respect of Arrowcroft’s further environmental information submitted to you on 24 January 2008. They state that the deadline for submitting objections to Arrowcroft’s revised/new data has been extended to 17 March 2008.
I wish to formally object that, despite the fact that the public inquiry into the CPO has officially ended, Arrowcroft are still being allowed to submit revised/altered information:
· This is outwith the time limit of the inquiry
· It is my, and indeed many other residents’, understanding that once the inquiry ended no further information could/should be submitted
· Berwin Leighton Paisner, Arrowcroft’s solicitors, are seemingly setting the timetable and deadlines for objections
· Berwin Leighton Paisner, and by definition Arrowcroft, appear to be acting on your behalf
· The additional information being submitted after the end of the inquiry, and onus to object to it, is confusing to the residents of Croydon (myself included) who are negatively impacted by Arrowcroft’s plans. We have no specific legal expertise, and trust you to act impartially.
I have the following questions:
1. Who is running this inquiry, you or Arrowcroft?
2. Given the ongoing bombardment of information and changes by Arrowcroft, how can lay people possibly keep track or indeed understand what is happening?
3. Given the ongoing changes of information and revised deadlines for objections, how can we possibly keep track of the process that is being followed by you in trying to come to a decision wrt the CPO?
4. Has the application been altered?
5. Why is Arrowcroft being allowed to set the deadlines?
In my opinion the independence and impartiality of the inquiry is being severely, and openly, compromised by Arrowcroft’s and Berwin Leighton Paisner’s actions.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you in advance.
Yours sincerely,
Ken Frost MA FCA FIPFM
Croydon Against The Arena
www.catarena.org
cc Deborah Tobin – Planning Inspectorate
Andrew Pelling MP"
Monday, 28 January 2008
Another Bite of The Cherry
I understand that Arrowcroft's Solicitors (Berwin Leighton Paisner) are sending out to various parties another document, attempting to bolster Arrowcroft's case for the arena, which they intend to submit to the Secretary of State.
It is from Showsec about Crowd Management Strategy, and the hard copy is accompanied by a CD.
Unfortunately for Arrowcroft the CD seemingly contains numerous errors, and is accompanied by an errata slip.
The package makes much of the staggered arrival of spectators before events, but ignores that fact that people will leave afterwards en masse (particularly, late at night).
Whilst they are allowed to send it to the Secretary of State, the inquiry inspector will not look at it now that the inquiry is over.
In other words, it is a waste of time and effort.
This act of desperation by Arrowcroft appears to be a last ditched attempt to plug holes in their case.
Those who take a second bite of the cherry, need to beware that they don't swallow the stone.
It is from Showsec about Crowd Management Strategy, and the hard copy is accompanied by a CD.
Unfortunately for Arrowcroft the CD seemingly contains numerous errors, and is accompanied by an errata slip.
The package makes much of the staggered arrival of spectators before events, but ignores that fact that people will leave afterwards en masse (particularly, late at night).
Whilst they are allowed to send it to the Secretary of State, the inquiry inspector will not look at it now that the inquiry is over.
In other words, it is a waste of time and effort.
This act of desperation by Arrowcroft appears to be a last ditched attempt to plug holes in their case.
Those who take a second bite of the cherry, need to beware that they don't swallow the stone.
Tuesday, 18 December 2007
Call In vs CPO
Here is the text of an email I received from Tim Pollard today:
"Dear Mr Frost
Apologies for the delay in replying to your email – it is a rather busy time of year…..
The £180,000 costs referred to in the Croydon Guardian report related to the costs that the Council incurred in relation to the Call-in Inquiry. It has long been public knowledge that the Council had to meet its own costs in relation to the Call-in Inquiry to maintain its independence and impartiality as Local Planning Authority.
The letter from Phillip Goodwin to Andrew Pelling MP was part of a chain of correspondence which related to the costs of the CPO Inquiry and the position in relation to those costs is as stated in that letter and the latest Council question dealing with the issue to which the Croydon Guardian advert is referring, i.e. the costs of the CPO Inquiry are being met by CCRLLP.
For your information, I attach a copy of that Council Question and the Answer given to it.
Regards
Cllr Tim Pollard"
Here is the text of the attachment that Tim sent:
"CQ504-07
from Councillor Avril Slipper
RE Could the Cabinet Member please tell me if he is aware of the cost of the Gateway Enquiry, and who is paying the bill?
Reply
The final cost to the Council of the Gateway public inquiry is likely to be in the region of £180,000, although I am unable to provide an exact cost at present because all invoices in relation to the inquiry have not yet been provided.
However, the majority of the cost of the inquiry is being met by Central Croydon Regeneration Limited Liability Partnership (CCRLLP), the partnership between Arrowcroft and Frogmore. CCRLLP is meeting the cost of presenting their case at the Call-in inquiry and is also meeting the total cost of the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) inquiry, as under the terms of the Development Agreement the Council has with CCRLLP, the latter is obliged to pay all the Council’s CPO costs.
The Council needed its own QC, legal advice and consultants to present the Council’s case at the Call-in inquiry, which makes up the £180,000 figure referred to above."
I then asked Tim what the difference is between the "call in inquiry" and the "CPO inquiry". Here is his answer:
"Ken
The Inspector heard three separate Inquiries, back to back. One was the call in of the Planning Permission, one was for the CPO itself, and the last was for the stopping up of part of Lansdowne Road. At the call in, the evidence heard related to the technical planning aspects of the scheme and it is broadly similar to any other planning permission inquiry, albeit on a grander scale. It's outcome is the granting (or refusal) of Planning Permission.
The CPO Inquiry tests whether the Council is correct in its desire to CPO the land and evaluates the suggested public good against the requirements of the Circular which outlines the conditions required for a successful CPO. It's outcome is the confirmation (or not) of a CPO.
Although it was the same Inspector and many of the key witnesses and Counsel are the same, the two Inquiries are quite separate, hearing different evidence and were separated by a recess of one week. They could have been held months apart, but it suited all parties to conjoin them.
Cllr Tim Pollard"
So there we are, Croydon council have not incurred any costs re the CPO for the arena and the council is determined to maintain its independence and impartiality as a Local Planning Authority.
I would like to venture one very modest observation; had the council not backed the arena there would be no "call in inquiry", and hence the council would not have needed to spend £180K of our money on it.
"Dear Mr Frost
Apologies for the delay in replying to your email – it is a rather busy time of year…..
The £180,000 costs referred to in the Croydon Guardian report related to the costs that the Council incurred in relation to the Call-in Inquiry. It has long been public knowledge that the Council had to meet its own costs in relation to the Call-in Inquiry to maintain its independence and impartiality as Local Planning Authority.
The letter from Phillip Goodwin to Andrew Pelling MP was part of a chain of correspondence which related to the costs of the CPO Inquiry and the position in relation to those costs is as stated in that letter and the latest Council question dealing with the issue to which the Croydon Guardian advert is referring, i.e. the costs of the CPO Inquiry are being met by CCRLLP.
For your information, I attach a copy of that Council Question and the Answer given to it.
Regards
Cllr Tim Pollard"
Here is the text of the attachment that Tim sent:
"CQ504-07
from Councillor Avril Slipper
RE Could the Cabinet Member please tell me if he is aware of the cost of the Gateway Enquiry, and who is paying the bill?
Reply
The final cost to the Council of the Gateway public inquiry is likely to be in the region of £180,000, although I am unable to provide an exact cost at present because all invoices in relation to the inquiry have not yet been provided.
However, the majority of the cost of the inquiry is being met by Central Croydon Regeneration Limited Liability Partnership (CCRLLP), the partnership between Arrowcroft and Frogmore. CCRLLP is meeting the cost of presenting their case at the Call-in inquiry and is also meeting the total cost of the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) inquiry, as under the terms of the Development Agreement the Council has with CCRLLP, the latter is obliged to pay all the Council’s CPO costs.
The Council needed its own QC, legal advice and consultants to present the Council’s case at the Call-in inquiry, which makes up the £180,000 figure referred to above."
I then asked Tim what the difference is between the "call in inquiry" and the "CPO inquiry". Here is his answer:
"Ken
The Inspector heard three separate Inquiries, back to back. One was the call in of the Planning Permission, one was for the CPO itself, and the last was for the stopping up of part of Lansdowne Road. At the call in, the evidence heard related to the technical planning aspects of the scheme and it is broadly similar to any other planning permission inquiry, albeit on a grander scale. It's outcome is the granting (or refusal) of Planning Permission.
The CPO Inquiry tests whether the Council is correct in its desire to CPO the land and evaluates the suggested public good against the requirements of the Circular which outlines the conditions required for a successful CPO. It's outcome is the confirmation (or not) of a CPO.
Although it was the same Inspector and many of the key witnesses and Counsel are the same, the two Inquiries are quite separate, hearing different evidence and were separated by a recess of one week. They could have been held months apart, but it suited all parties to conjoin them.
Cllr Tim Pollard"
So there we are, Croydon council have not incurred any costs re the CPO for the arena and the council is determined to maintain its independence and impartiality as a Local Planning Authority.
I would like to venture one very modest observation; had the council not backed the arena there would be no "call in inquiry", and hence the council would not have needed to spend £180K of our money on it.
Wednesday, 5 December 2007
How Very Curious
Now here is a very curious thing.
The Croydon Guardian reports that Croydon Council have incurred legal costs of £180K:
"After an eight-week inquiry into the Gateway scheme Croydon Council has been left with a bill of around £180,000.
This is just the costs the council has to cover, which pays for its legal advice."
Looks like we're going to need a few payday loans!
Why is it then that Phillip Goodwin, Croydon Council's Director of Planning and Transportation, wrote to Andrew Pelling on 30 January 2007 and told him:
"Almost all of the Gateway CPO costs will be 'direct' and therefore the responsibility of Arrowcroft...
The only costs the Council has to meet are ongoing internal staffing costs..."
How very curious!
Why would he say that then?
I have emailed Councillor Tim Pollard, cabinet member for finance, asking him to explain why Croydon council said that there would be no costs of this nature.
Copy of Goodwin's letter:
The Croydon Guardian reports that Croydon Council have incurred legal costs of £180K:
"After an eight-week inquiry into the Gateway scheme Croydon Council has been left with a bill of around £180,000.
This is just the costs the council has to cover, which pays for its legal advice."
Looks like we're going to need a few payday loans!
Why is it then that Phillip Goodwin, Croydon Council's Director of Planning and Transportation, wrote to Andrew Pelling on 30 January 2007 and told him:
"Almost all of the Gateway CPO costs will be 'direct' and therefore the responsibility of Arrowcroft...
The only costs the Council has to meet are ongoing internal staffing costs..."
How very curious!
Why would he say that then?
I have emailed Councillor Tim Pollard, cabinet member for finance, asking him to explain why Croydon council said that there would be no costs of this nature.
Copy of Goodwin's letter:
Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition
Friday, 30 November 2007
Arrogance
It seems that Arrowcroft may be guilty of displaying a degree of arrogance over their chances of winning the CPO inquiry.
Go to their site, click on "Planning Application" then on "Timetable". There you will see:
Mid 2008 – Anticipated start on site
Early 2010 – Arena up and running in time for the 2012 Olympic Games
Counting your chickens a bit aren't you guys?
Go to their site, click on "Planning Application" then on "Timetable". There you will see:
Mid 2008 – Anticipated start on site
Early 2010 – Arena up and running in time for the 2012 Olympic Games
Counting your chickens a bit aren't you guys?
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Truck Off!
The inquiry into the CPO is now over, aside from the final submissions due on the 19th of November.
The final week threw up a few amusing nuggets, showing that Arrowcroft have not thought through their last minute revisions to their plans particularly well.
Moving one of the walls a little bit to accommodate the extra platform space that Network Rail wanted would result in the substation being reduced in size, the Warehouse Theatre being reduced by a further 10%, and put some lifts out of alignment on different floors.
Also, in the proof of evidence, this came to light:
"From: "Andrew Roberts"
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:17:07
To:"Christopher O'Reilly",
Subject: 70401 - Arena Servicing
Chris/Murray,
I understand that in evidence Murray, you suggest up to 14 service vehicles arriving
at 0800-1030am, which conflicts with the advice previously given regarding 8 - 10
trucks loading over a 3 hour period.
If 14 vehicles are likely to service the arena in a 2.5hour period, how do we avoid
bunching, bearing in mind the advice regarding inefficiencies if too many things are
being unloaded at once. Also, what method do you anticipate employing to avoid all
vehicles turning up at once, which is critical bearing in mind how tight the
manoeuvring space is.
Finally, none of the advice I have seen relates to any specific provision for
'artistes' trucks to stay during an event.
Is this a weakness of the scheme?
Regards
Andy
Andrew Roberts
Associate Director
Source Persona
It seems that precious little thought has been given to the consequences of artistes trucks (coaches,vehicles etc for touring companies like ice-shows, ballet, opera and orchestras etc) servicing the arena.
Hardly inspired planning, is it?
The final week threw up a few amusing nuggets, showing that Arrowcroft have not thought through their last minute revisions to their plans particularly well.
Moving one of the walls a little bit to accommodate the extra platform space that Network Rail wanted would result in the substation being reduced in size, the Warehouse Theatre being reduced by a further 10%, and put some lifts out of alignment on different floors.
Also, in the proof of evidence, this came to light:
"From: "Andrew Roberts"
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:17:07
To:"Christopher O'Reilly"
Subject: 70401 - Arena Servicing
Chris/Murray,
I understand that in evidence Murray, you suggest up to 14 service vehicles arriving
at 0800-1030am, which conflicts with the advice previously given regarding 8 - 10
trucks loading over a 3 hour period.
If 14 vehicles are likely to service the arena in a 2.5hour period, how do we avoid
bunching, bearing in mind the advice regarding inefficiencies if too many things are
being unloaded at once. Also, what method do you anticipate employing to avoid all
vehicles turning up at once, which is critical bearing in mind how tight the
manoeuvring space is.
Finally, none of the advice I have seen relates to any specific provision for
'artistes' trucks to stay during an event.
Is this a weakness of the scheme?
Regards
Andy
Andrew Roberts
Associate Director
Source Persona
It seems that precious little thought has been given to the consequences of artistes trucks (coaches,vehicles etc for touring companies like ice-shows, ballet, opera and orchestras etc) servicing the arena.
Hardly inspired planning, is it?
Thursday, 8 November 2007
Arrowcroft To Make an Offer II
In today's Croydon Guardian:
"The fact Arrowcroft is looking to make an offer, days before the end of the inquiry, could indicate that it doesn't believe it is going to succeed in acquiring the site."
Exactly!
However, this "offer" has as much chance of succeeding as hell freezing over:
1 The difference in valuations £50M is far too large
2 Why did Arrowcroft not buy the land when it was available?
3 Why did they not make an offer before the CPO?
4 Albert Dock in Liverpool is owned by Arrowcroft, and shows losses in excess of £1M and debts of £24M in the company accounts. Given the financial difficulties of another Arrowcroft "prestige project", why are Croydon Council so sure that the Arrowcroft plans for the Gateway are financially viable?
Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition
"The fact Arrowcroft is looking to make an offer, days before the end of the inquiry, could indicate that it doesn't believe it is going to succeed in acquiring the site."
Exactly!
However, this "offer" has as much chance of succeeding as hell freezing over:
1 The difference in valuations £50M is far too large
2 Why did Arrowcroft not buy the land when it was available?
3 Why did they not make an offer before the CPO?
4 Albert Dock in Liverpool is owned by Arrowcroft, and shows losses in excess of £1M and debts of £24M in the company accounts. Given the financial difficulties of another Arrowcroft "prestige project", why are Croydon Council so sure that the Arrowcroft plans for the Gateway are financially viable?
Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition
Wednesday, 7 November 2007
Arrowcroft To Make an Offer
According to Property Week, Arrowcroft and Croydon Council are about to make an offer to Stanhope Schroders for the Croydon Gateway site.
Paul White of Frogmore (the company that is providing finance for the arena) is quoted by Property Week as saying:
"Notwithstanding the fact that we have now been told there is an overage* provision, that won't get in the way of negotiations on our acquiring Stanhope and Schroders' interest in the site."
*Overage provision is a condition attached to the sale of land, where anyone buying the site would pay more if or when planning permission for the site is granted.
However, don't worry, it should be noted that there is a £47M to £55M discrepancy between the two sides over how much they think the site is worth.
The fact that the council and Arrowcroft are looking to make an offer, before the end of the inquiry, indicates that they don't believe that they are going to win.
Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition
Paul White of Frogmore (the company that is providing finance for the arena) is quoted by Property Week as saying:
"Notwithstanding the fact that we have now been told there is an overage* provision, that won't get in the way of negotiations on our acquiring Stanhope and Schroders' interest in the site."
*Overage provision is a condition attached to the sale of land, where anyone buying the site would pay more if or when planning permission for the site is granted.
However, don't worry, it should be noted that there is a £47M to £55M discrepancy between the two sides over how much they think the site is worth.
The fact that the council and Arrowcroft are looking to make an offer, before the end of the inquiry, indicates that they don't believe that they are going to win.
Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
Wakey Wakey Tim!
Oh dear, according to the Croydon Guardian, it would seem that the arena inquiry simply isn't stimulating enough for Councillor Tim Pollard:
"Councillor Tim Pollard, the town hall's cabinet member for finance and regeneration, arrived at the inquiry bright eyed and bushy tailed last Wednesday but within half an hour his eyes began rolling and soon his head was slumped on to his chest.
Despite this being one of the most important issues the council has had to face since it won the election last year, it seems it was not exciting enough to keep Coun Pollard awake."
Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition
"Councillor Tim Pollard, the town hall's cabinet member for finance and regeneration, arrived at the inquiry bright eyed and bushy tailed last Wednesday but within half an hour his eyes began rolling and soon his head was slumped on to his chest.
Despite this being one of the most important issues the council has had to face since it won the election last year, it seems it was not exciting enough to keep Coun Pollard awake."
Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition
Sunday, 28 October 2007
Warehouse Proof of Evidence
My thanks to the Warehouse Theatre for sending me their proof of evidence against the proposed arena development.
They will be presenting this at the public inquiry into the compulsory purchase order this coming week.
As you can see form the extract below, Arrowcroft and Frogmore have had no meaningful dialogue with the Warehouse; despite their, and the council's claims, that they have now included a genuine proposal for a replacement theatre in their plans for the arena development.
How can you design a replacement Warehouse theatre if you have not spoken to the people who own and run the Warehouse?
1. In February 2004 we made our position in relation to both developers crystal clear on our web site. That statement was designed to ensure that everyone knew what our intention was:
"We seek a replacement for our current building, as we not only out-grew it some time ago, but it also does not comply with disability regulations nor does it have enough seats to continue to be commercially viable for the longer term.
We welcomed the offer by Stanhope/Schroders for a replacement theatre in their proposals. This had not been offered by the other potential developer. We believe that the provision of a new theatre for us on the Gateway site adds enormous value and diversity to this development.
Our responsibility is to ensure that we have a venue in Croydon to undertake our core activities - as a producing theatre for new writing and providing entertainment & education for the benefit of the Croydon community.
Accordingly, the company will continue to seek to have dialogue with developers, officers and members of Croydon Council, the Mayor of London, government ministers etc. to pursue our goal for a new theatre and our future in the development."
2. We continue to pursue the above policy and have made strenuous efforts to do so.
We have had several 'off the record' meetings with Arrowcroft since 2004 which have
led nowhere. In 2007 we also wrote to their new funding partner 'Frogmore' who referred us back to Arrowcroft.
3. The Warehouse Theatre therefore proceeded with our objections to the planning application and the CPO because a new theatre has not been included in Arrowcroft's
plans.
4. It was only on 5th June 2007 that we received a letter from Arrowcroft identifying
how a replacement theatre 'could' be included in their scheme and how this would be
achieved through a section 106 agreement. A plan (PL050) was included showing its proposed location. However, we then understood that this plan does not form part of
the planning application. We have had no meaningful dialogue with either the acquiring authority or Arrowcroft about this proposal either before, or indeed
subsequently.
5. The Theatre is of the view that this is not a viable way forward. A comprehensive
plan has to be in place to achieve the continuity of our business from our current site to a new building if our objections are to be removed. The Arrowcroft proposal does not achieve this.
The document goes on to note that the scheme "is we understand under financial stress without an end funder in place".
In other words, do Arrowcroft actually have the money to follow through on their plans for an arena development?
The complete Proof of Evidence document can be downloaded via this link: Warehouse Proof of Evidence.
Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition
They will be presenting this at the public inquiry into the compulsory purchase order this coming week.
As you can see form the extract below, Arrowcroft and Frogmore have had no meaningful dialogue with the Warehouse; despite their, and the council's claims, that they have now included a genuine proposal for a replacement theatre in their plans for the arena development.
How can you design a replacement Warehouse theatre if you have not spoken to the people who own and run the Warehouse?
1. In February 2004 we made our position in relation to both developers crystal clear on our web site. That statement was designed to ensure that everyone knew what our intention was:
"We seek a replacement for our current building, as we not only out-grew it some time ago, but it also does not comply with disability regulations nor does it have enough seats to continue to be commercially viable for the longer term.
We welcomed the offer by Stanhope/Schroders for a replacement theatre in their proposals. This had not been offered by the other potential developer. We believe that the provision of a new theatre for us on the Gateway site adds enormous value and diversity to this development.
Our responsibility is to ensure that we have a venue in Croydon to undertake our core activities - as a producing theatre for new writing and providing entertainment & education for the benefit of the Croydon community.
Accordingly, the company will continue to seek to have dialogue with developers, officers and members of Croydon Council, the Mayor of London, government ministers etc. to pursue our goal for a new theatre and our future in the development."
2. We continue to pursue the above policy and have made strenuous efforts to do so.
We have had several 'off the record' meetings with Arrowcroft since 2004 which have
led nowhere. In 2007 we also wrote to their new funding partner 'Frogmore' who referred us back to Arrowcroft.
3. The Warehouse Theatre therefore proceeded with our objections to the planning application and the CPO because a new theatre has not been included in Arrowcroft's
plans.
4. It was only on 5th June 2007 that we received a letter from Arrowcroft identifying
how a replacement theatre 'could' be included in their scheme and how this would be
achieved through a section 106 agreement. A plan (PL050) was included showing its proposed location. However, we then understood that this plan does not form part of
the planning application. We have had no meaningful dialogue with either the acquiring authority or Arrowcroft about this proposal either before, or indeed
subsequently.
5. The Theatre is of the view that this is not a viable way forward. A comprehensive
plan has to be in place to achieve the continuity of our business from our current site to a new building if our objections are to be removed. The Arrowcroft proposal does not achieve this.
The document goes on to note that the scheme "is we understand under financial stress without an end funder in place".
In other words, do Arrowcroft actually have the money to follow through on their plans for an arena development?
The complete Proof of Evidence document can be downloaded via this link: Warehouse Proof of Evidence.
Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition
Sunday, 14 October 2007
Arrowcroft Architect Abhores Arena
It would seem that all is not well between Arrowcroft and their architect.
The architect of the Arrowcroft scheme, Mr Michael Aukett is unhappy with the design of the arena that Arrowcroft and Croydon Council are so keen to impose on the citizens of Croydon.
Mr Aukett stated at the inquiry into Croydon Council's CPO that he did not like the design of the actual arena, nor the positioning of its entrances.
Given that the architect of the arena has taken such a dislike to the plans that Arrowcroft are putting forward; why the hell should the people of Croydon be expected to endorse it, and why are Croydon Council still trying to ram their unwanted and unloved scheme down our throats?
Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition
The architect of the Arrowcroft scheme, Mr Michael Aukett is unhappy with the design of the arena that Arrowcroft and Croydon Council are so keen to impose on the citizens of Croydon.
Mr Aukett stated at the inquiry into Croydon Council's CPO that he did not like the design of the actual arena, nor the positioning of its entrances.
Given that the architect of the arena has taken such a dislike to the plans that Arrowcroft are putting forward; why the hell should the people of Croydon be expected to endorse it, and why are Croydon Council still trying to ram their unwanted and unloved scheme down our throats?
Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition
Monday, 8 October 2007
The Elephant in The Room II
On the 13th of September I asked:
"If the Arena is such a good commercially viable project, as Arrowcroft and Croydon Council would have us believe, why is that no one has yet been found to take it on and run it (in the event that it is built)?"
I am pleased to see that the inquiry into the flawed, and misguided, plans of Croydon Council to build and arena on the Gateway site have now been told that Arrowcroft has been unable to sign up an anchor sports team for the arena. This of course knocks a major hole in their financial projections, and their claim that the project is commercially viable.
This is the point that many people have been making for years.
Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition
"If the Arena is such a good commercially viable project, as Arrowcroft and Croydon Council would have us believe, why is that no one has yet been found to take it on and run it (in the event that it is built)?"
I am pleased to see that the inquiry into the flawed, and misguided, plans of Croydon Council to build and arena on the Gateway site have now been told that Arrowcroft has been unable to sign up an anchor sports team for the arena. This of course knocks a major hole in their financial projections, and their claim that the project is commercially viable.
This is the point that many people have been making for years.
Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition
Saturday, 22 September 2007
News From The Public Inquiry
Sources at the Croydon Public Inquiry into the CPO by Croydon Council, tell me that the Inspector has ordered the marketing hoardings to be ripped down over the weekend!
Interestingly this instruction was issued after I had sent my earlier article about the independence of the inquiry to Persona Associates, who are handling the admin etc for the inquiry.
I also am told that the Arrowcroft architect, after many hours of close questioning, said that he has not yet been paid by Arrowcroft. I assume his fee is based on "success".
Interestingly this instruction was issued after I had sent my earlier article about the independence of the inquiry to Persona Associates, who are handling the admin etc for the inquiry.
I also am told that the Arrowcroft architect, after many hours of close questioning, said that he has not yet been paid by Arrowcroft. I assume his fee is based on "success".
Wednesday, 19 September 2007
Independence and Ethics
I draw your attention to this comment posted on this site today, re the room in which the CPO inquiry is being held:
"The room is more like a marketing suite for Arrowcroft and the Arena rather than an independent inquiry.
Each wall is covered in images of the Arena and buildings.
How can the inspector be seen to be independent in these circumstances?"
As an experienced FCA, auditor and forensic investigator I would remind the inquiry that it not just a case of "being independent" but being "seen to be independent".
Failure to observe both of the above ethical principles will irreparably damage the credibility of the inquiry.
"The room is more like a marketing suite for Arrowcroft and the Arena rather than an independent inquiry.
Each wall is covered in images of the Arena and buildings.
How can the inspector be seen to be independent in these circumstances?"
As an experienced FCA, auditor and forensic investigator I would remind the inquiry that it not just a case of "being independent" but being "seen to be independent".
Failure to observe both of the above ethical principles will irreparably damage the credibility of the inquiry.
Tuesday, 18 September 2007
Farce
It would appear that, if the reports are to be believed, day one of the public inquiry into the arena development was not a resounding success wrt logistics.
The Croydon Guardian notes:
"Televisual equipment was out of order and dozens of people were left in the foyer of the Jury's Inn hotel straining to hear what was going on.
One resident said: 'This is an absolute travesty - this is supposed to be a public inquiry and we cannot hear a word of what is being said.'..."
Maybe Croydon Council will begin to realise that they have underestimated the strength of feeling against the arena.
The Croydon Guardian notes:
"Televisual equipment was out of order and dozens of people were left in the foyer of the Jury's Inn hotel straining to hear what was going on.
One resident said: 'This is an absolute travesty - this is supposed to be a public inquiry and we cannot hear a word of what is being said.'..."
Maybe Croydon Council will begin to realise that they have underestimated the strength of feeling against the arena.
Sunday, 26 August 2007
Majority Oppose Arena
My thanks to Councillor Maria Garcia who has posted the results of a recent survey about the arena, conducted with the residents of Addiscombe, on this site.
It seems that 70% of the residents of Addiscombe, who responded, oppose the arena. This knocks into a cocked hat Croydon council's oft repeated assertion that they have consulted widely with the citizens of Croydon, about their plans for this unwanted and unloved development.
Kudos to Councillor Garcia and her colleagues who not only listen to the voters, but have the cajones to stand up in the inquiry and publicly oppose the arena.
It is clear that the council's plans for the arena are falling apart.
It seems that 70% of the residents of Addiscombe, who responded, oppose the arena. This knocks into a cocked hat Croydon council's oft repeated assertion that they have consulted widely with the citizens of Croydon, about their plans for this unwanted and unloved development.
Kudos to Councillor Garcia and her colleagues who not only listen to the voters, but have the cajones to stand up in the inquiry and publicly oppose the arena.
It is clear that the council's plans for the arena are falling apart.
Monday, 23 July 2007
Arrowcroft's True Feelings About The Warehouse
My thanks to V, who sent me this email.
It very neatly points out the contradiction between Arrowcroft's recent claim that they now want the Warehouse Theatre in their project, and the real viewpoint of Arrowcroft.
The viability of Fairfield Halls also seems to be in dispute as well.
"Dear Ken,
Re Nicholas Hai's 'Warehouse welcomed' (quoted on Catarena Message Board from Marple), you would not think so to read the "put-downs" on both the Warehouse Theatre and Fairfield Halls in Arrowcroft's submission to the Inspector for the public inquiry!
For those without the "benefit" of this document, I quote from it below.
Retail and Leisure
10.50 (Apart from the Vue Cinema and Clocktower) "in-town entertainment and leisure facilities are rather dated, not market facing and lacking in quality.
The Warehouse Theatre is a small arts-based facility which has lost grant support. The Fairfield Halls which was at one time a leading venue attracting major popular acts such as the Beatles and Rolling Stones" [the arena is not big enough to attract the modern equivalent either !] "now suffers from declining audiences, inadequate facilities and too small a capacity for many current touring acts. We understand that Croydon Council is currently considering the future of Fairfield Hall and Peggy Ashcroft Theatre."
Economic Benefit of Arena
2.5.7 "The Warehouse is a small arts based (80 seats due to health and safety restrictions) facility which has lost grant support."
1.2.7 "The Fairfield Halls have also been losing audiences and are not financially sustainable as they stand."
2.5.5 "The published accounts of Fairfield Halls show that it has been highly dependent upon grants of one sort or another for many years." [How many years ago did they have their council grant cut to nil because of council overspending and the need to balance the budget?] "It is in need of essential refurbishment and updating as it lacks air conditioning and many features are outworn.
Attracting an investment partner to fund these improvements would be difficult and it seems unlikely without large scale government funding that Fairfield Halls will be brought up to modern standards in the near future."
I suppose giving the Inspector the impression that Fairfield is on its last legs gives them the excuse for pinching all their parking spaces!
But then again Dudley Mead (Cabinet member for Finance and Major Projects) in a letter to me dated 12 April 2007 said "Please also note that the Fairfield is continuing to make great progress - with rising audiences."
So who's right?
I've been there six times in six months, and five times the seats were all full, or almost full!"
It very neatly points out the contradiction between Arrowcroft's recent claim that they now want the Warehouse Theatre in their project, and the real viewpoint of Arrowcroft.
The viability of Fairfield Halls also seems to be in dispute as well.
"Dear Ken,
Re Nicholas Hai's 'Warehouse welcomed' (quoted on Catarena Message Board from Marple), you would not think so to read the "put-downs" on both the Warehouse Theatre and Fairfield Halls in Arrowcroft's submission to the Inspector for the public inquiry!
For those without the "benefit" of this document, I quote from it below.
Retail and Leisure
10.50 (Apart from the Vue Cinema and Clocktower) "in-town entertainment and leisure facilities are rather dated, not market facing and lacking in quality.
The Warehouse Theatre is a small arts-based facility which has lost grant support. The Fairfield Halls which was at one time a leading venue attracting major popular acts such as the Beatles and Rolling Stones" [the arena is not big enough to attract the modern equivalent either !] "now suffers from declining audiences, inadequate facilities and too small a capacity for many current touring acts. We understand that Croydon Council is currently considering the future of Fairfield Hall and Peggy Ashcroft Theatre."
Economic Benefit of Arena
2.5.7 "The Warehouse is a small arts based (80 seats due to health and safety restrictions) facility which has lost grant support."
1.2.7 "The Fairfield Halls have also been losing audiences and are not financially sustainable as they stand."
2.5.5 "The published accounts of Fairfield Halls show that it has been highly dependent upon grants of one sort or another for many years." [How many years ago did they have their council grant cut to nil because of council overspending and the need to balance the budget?] "It is in need of essential refurbishment and updating as it lacks air conditioning and many features are outworn.
Attracting an investment partner to fund these improvements would be difficult and it seems unlikely without large scale government funding that Fairfield Halls will be brought up to modern standards in the near future."
I suppose giving the Inspector the impression that Fairfield is on its last legs gives them the excuse for pinching all their parking spaces!
But then again Dudley Mead (Cabinet member for Finance and Major Projects) in a letter to me dated 12 April 2007 said "Please also note that the Fairfield is continuing to make great progress - with rising audiences."
So who's right?
I've been there six times in six months, and five times the seats were all full, or almost full!"
Friday, 20 July 2007
Arrowcroft's Case Demolished
My compliments to the Canning and Clyde Road Residents' Association who have written and excellent letter demolishing Arrowcroft's case for the arena.
They have given me permission to publish the letter here.
It is a pity that our local media have not probed Arrowcroft's claims very thoroughly, if at all, nor indeed acknowledged that there is widespread opposition to the arena within the borough.
"The Planning Inspectorate
Attention Deborah Tobin
4/04 Kite Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
BRISTOL BS1 6PN
17 July 2007
Dear Ms Tobin
Town & Country Planning Act 1990 – Section 77 Application by Arrowcroft Ltd Site and Land Adjoining East Croydon Station, George Street, Dingwall Road and Lansdowne Road, Croydon Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/293)
We have been informed by Berwin Leighton Poisner that we have an opportunity to comment upon the latest planning material for this important East Croydon Gateway site.
We are sending this objection on behalf of Park Hill Residents Association, Morland Park Residents Association, H.O.M.E. Residents Association and our own Association. This represents over 4,000 households in the vicinity of the proposed development. We are aware of strong opposition to the applicant’s scheme by other residents who do not have the representation of an association.
Our own Association has commented on the original application to the London Borough of Croydon on 7 February 2003 and to the Government Office for London on 10 February 2004. We trust, as we intend to speak at the forthcoming Inquiry, that these
previous objections will be considered by the Inspector.
As you are aware, the potential developer has just released a considerable amount of last minute new information and we would like to further object by adding the following:
1. We believe the current plans are amongst others contrary to the Secretary of State’s Policy in PPG13 and Policies PPS1, PPS3 and PPS6.
2. The plan completely fails to show any improvement to the public transport
infrastructure, only a woolly reference to a new platform at East Croydon Station.
3. The statement of impacts on transport generation and modal travel patterns is severely flawed. For example, the traffic assessment is based on two days, Wednesday 18 July 2006 and Saturday 6 January 2007. There is no evidence that either of these days is representative. It would be expected that traffic would be relatively light on a Wednesday in mid-July because it is in the holiday season and some educational establishments were on holiday.
4. In an endeavour to prove transport capacity, the importance of chronology seems to have been forgotten. It is highly likely that patrons will arrive in a pulse during the hour before an event. This coincides with rush hour for both vehicle and public transport, particularly trains. Most certainly a 17.00 hours to 19.00 hours assessment, possibly of a Friday, is needed for all modes of transport. The patrons’ choice of transport will of course be decided by ease, cost and sociability. Particularly with a mind to returning after an entertainment event, the car seems a preferable choice. There is no price sensitivity analysis to disprove this and encourage more sustainable transport choices.
5. The road infrastructure in and around central Croydon is poor and very fragile. As an example, in a three week period earlier this year, there were three instances when traffic gridlocked due to minor incidences. The gridlocking of course affected bus and tram services.
6. The difficulty in using the Whitgift, Allders or any other car parks on the other side of Wellesley Road is that patrons will have to cross the Wellesley Road either at a busy road junction or through a subway which not everyone views as safe. Arena patrons will likely be competing with patrons of the Fairfield Halls to use their car parks. The temptation to use on street parking in adjacent and neighbouring residential areas is therefore overwhelming. All of our residents associations do not wish to see any changes to existing controlled parking zones. This will damage our community and inhibit activities including attendance at clubs and places of worship. Where will patrons of the 12,000 square feet night club park up?
7. We note that the supermarket has grown to over 110,000 square feet. The original
plan was that people would use this supermarket to do their weekly shop. Given that the total site contains more cycle parking places than car parking (1,477 / 1,186) and given the difficulty of driving into the centre of Croydon, it seems unlikely that people would want to use it for a weekly shop. What will be the purpose of this supermarket that is not already provided for in the centre of Croydon? Cycling in central Croydon is known to be extremely hazardous.
8. The Means of Transport Statement is severely out-of-date. The tram routes have
changed and bus service listings are out-of-date at time of traffic assessment. The
volume and distribution of public transport travel in Greater London has increased
substantially since 2000 so for example updating a seven year old SRA rail travel
survey is not likely to give valid results.
9. Although the applicant presents Croydon as having quick public transport links from all areas, this is not the case for certain places within the potential catchment area, such as Orpington, Bromley, Biggin Hill, Selsdon and Sanderstead amongst others. These people will likely come by car.
10. We think the nature of the development is such that it should be required to
demonstrate that a sequential approach has been applied in selecting the location for
the proposed development. This is dismissed by saying that none were considered.
Why?
The most cursory of investigations would have revealed the potential of the nearby Crystal Palace Arena. It has a seated capacity of 16,500 and can handle up to 45,000 for large concert events. It has Crystal Palace Station adjacent to the main entrance and has three other railway stations within easy walking distance.
The Arena is well served by a variety of bus services from throughout London – the East Croydon Gateway site being just a 25 minute public transport ride away. The Crystal Palace area is highlighted for regeneration. Plans proposed by Croydon Council and TfL include a Croydon Tramlink extension to Crystal Palace.
11. The application should demonstrate regeneration which we take to mean creating a
sustainable community. We believe that the Arena scheme in this location will severely harm existing demonstrable, local, sustainable and diverse communities and not create one in its own right.
12. The application contains a new building for the Warehouse Theatre, but conditional upon the Theatre being able to provide a viable business plan for the future. Since the applicant’s development plans would mean displacement of the Theatre for at least a 3-4 year period then this could prove tricky (and seems fatuous, since the applicant lacks one of their own). We think this ‘last minute’ concession to the Theatre is due to the overwhelming public outrage – local, national and international - at its previous exclusion from the earlier planning application.
13. Nothing in the new material leads us to believe that the proposed development is
commercially and financially capable of delivering the metropolitan status, rebranding and regeneration of Croydon. Since the Arena idea was first mooted, alternative arena venues have opened in London, for example Wembley (12,200 fully seated) that with the 70% increase in tube capacity can easily cope with the patronage. In addition of course we have the O2 and Indigo venues at The Dome.
14. We have yet to see a business plan for the operation of the proposed Arena. A year ago we were told by the applicant that a full capacity (12,500) audience was needed 100 times per year for the Arena to be commercially viable. We note from the latest application material that a capacity crowd has now been redefined to mean either 60% or 70% of the total possible. Apart from having to do so to suit the Transport Plan, surely this raises doubts over the commerciality of the project and raises questions as to why the Arena should be so large in the first place.
15. Is there any reason why Croydon needs yet another night club? Problems with existing clubs have recently led to the Council reviewing its licensing procedure.
16. We could find no mention in the new material of off-site law, order and crowd control nor emergency evacuation arrangements. Who will undertake this? We have been
made very aware of how overstretched the Croydon Police force already is at peak
times.
17. Regarding the quality of design, it appears to be more oppressive greyness and glass with which Croydon has been architecturally overburdened since the 1960s.
18. Although this applicant’s scheme is preferred and promoted by the London Borough of Croydon, at no time has the Council undertaken any proper public consultation to ask the people of Croydon whether this is what they want. In fact we learnt about the
original planning application by chance and were sent details of this latest application apparently because we have formally objected to the Council’s Compulsory Purchase Order to the site. Notification did not come from the London Borough of Croydon but a third party. For a development of this size and with the impact that it is likely to have on Croydon for many years to come, it begs the question why the public’s opinion has not been carefully canvassed and why the Council so willingly granted the original planning application (now the subject of the call-in) apparently without any viability or impact assessment.
We take heart from the UDP Inspector’s Report that said an Arena on this site was not
essential.
We are grateful to the applicant, Arrowcroft, for inviting us to meet to discuss our concerns about their latest development plans. We did this on 12 July 2007 but regret we received no satisfactory answers to the above and other matters raised.
Steve Collins
Chairman, Canning and Clyde Road Residents Association
Also on behalf of Park Hill Residents Association, Morland Park Residents Association,H.O.M.E Residents Association and the former Croydon Society Transport Group."
They have given me permission to publish the letter here.
It is a pity that our local media have not probed Arrowcroft's claims very thoroughly, if at all, nor indeed acknowledged that there is widespread opposition to the arena within the borough.
"The Planning Inspectorate
Attention Deborah Tobin
4/04 Kite Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
BRISTOL BS1 6PN
17 July 2007
Dear Ms Tobin
Town & Country Planning Act 1990 – Section 77 Application by Arrowcroft Ltd Site and Land Adjoining East Croydon Station, George Street, Dingwall Road and Lansdowne Road, Croydon Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/293)
We have been informed by Berwin Leighton Poisner that we have an opportunity to comment upon the latest planning material for this important East Croydon Gateway site.
We are sending this objection on behalf of Park Hill Residents Association, Morland Park Residents Association, H.O.M.E. Residents Association and our own Association. This represents over 4,000 households in the vicinity of the proposed development. We are aware of strong opposition to the applicant’s scheme by other residents who do not have the representation of an association.
Our own Association has commented on the original application to the London Borough of Croydon on 7 February 2003 and to the Government Office for London on 10 February 2004. We trust, as we intend to speak at the forthcoming Inquiry, that these
previous objections will be considered by the Inspector.
As you are aware, the potential developer has just released a considerable amount of last minute new information and we would like to further object by adding the following:
1. We believe the current plans are amongst others contrary to the Secretary of State’s Policy in PPG13 and Policies PPS1, PPS3 and PPS6.
2. The plan completely fails to show any improvement to the public transport
infrastructure, only a woolly reference to a new platform at East Croydon Station.
3. The statement of impacts on transport generation and modal travel patterns is severely flawed. For example, the traffic assessment is based on two days, Wednesday 18 July 2006 and Saturday 6 January 2007. There is no evidence that either of these days is representative. It would be expected that traffic would be relatively light on a Wednesday in mid-July because it is in the holiday season and some educational establishments were on holiday.
4. In an endeavour to prove transport capacity, the importance of chronology seems to have been forgotten. It is highly likely that patrons will arrive in a pulse during the hour before an event. This coincides with rush hour for both vehicle and public transport, particularly trains. Most certainly a 17.00 hours to 19.00 hours assessment, possibly of a Friday, is needed for all modes of transport. The patrons’ choice of transport will of course be decided by ease, cost and sociability. Particularly with a mind to returning after an entertainment event, the car seems a preferable choice. There is no price sensitivity analysis to disprove this and encourage more sustainable transport choices.
5. The road infrastructure in and around central Croydon is poor and very fragile. As an example, in a three week period earlier this year, there were three instances when traffic gridlocked due to minor incidences. The gridlocking of course affected bus and tram services.
6. The difficulty in using the Whitgift, Allders or any other car parks on the other side of Wellesley Road is that patrons will have to cross the Wellesley Road either at a busy road junction or through a subway which not everyone views as safe. Arena patrons will likely be competing with patrons of the Fairfield Halls to use their car parks. The temptation to use on street parking in adjacent and neighbouring residential areas is therefore overwhelming. All of our residents associations do not wish to see any changes to existing controlled parking zones. This will damage our community and inhibit activities including attendance at clubs and places of worship. Where will patrons of the 12,000 square feet night club park up?
7. We note that the supermarket has grown to over 110,000 square feet. The original
plan was that people would use this supermarket to do their weekly shop. Given that the total site contains more cycle parking places than car parking (1,477 / 1,186) and given the difficulty of driving into the centre of Croydon, it seems unlikely that people would want to use it for a weekly shop. What will be the purpose of this supermarket that is not already provided for in the centre of Croydon? Cycling in central Croydon is known to be extremely hazardous.
8. The Means of Transport Statement is severely out-of-date. The tram routes have
changed and bus service listings are out-of-date at time of traffic assessment. The
volume and distribution of public transport travel in Greater London has increased
substantially since 2000 so for example updating a seven year old SRA rail travel
survey is not likely to give valid results.
9. Although the applicant presents Croydon as having quick public transport links from all areas, this is not the case for certain places within the potential catchment area, such as Orpington, Bromley, Biggin Hill, Selsdon and Sanderstead amongst others. These people will likely come by car.
10. We think the nature of the development is such that it should be required to
demonstrate that a sequential approach has been applied in selecting the location for
the proposed development. This is dismissed by saying that none were considered.
Why?
The most cursory of investigations would have revealed the potential of the nearby Crystal Palace Arena. It has a seated capacity of 16,500 and can handle up to 45,000 for large concert events. It has Crystal Palace Station adjacent to the main entrance and has three other railway stations within easy walking distance.
The Arena is well served by a variety of bus services from throughout London – the East Croydon Gateway site being just a 25 minute public transport ride away. The Crystal Palace area is highlighted for regeneration. Plans proposed by Croydon Council and TfL include a Croydon Tramlink extension to Crystal Palace.
11. The application should demonstrate regeneration which we take to mean creating a
sustainable community. We believe that the Arena scheme in this location will severely harm existing demonstrable, local, sustainable and diverse communities and not create one in its own right.
12. The application contains a new building for the Warehouse Theatre, but conditional upon the Theatre being able to provide a viable business plan for the future. Since the applicant’s development plans would mean displacement of the Theatre for at least a 3-4 year period then this could prove tricky (and seems fatuous, since the applicant lacks one of their own). We think this ‘last minute’ concession to the Theatre is due to the overwhelming public outrage – local, national and international - at its previous exclusion from the earlier planning application.
13. Nothing in the new material leads us to believe that the proposed development is
commercially and financially capable of delivering the metropolitan status, rebranding and regeneration of Croydon. Since the Arena idea was first mooted, alternative arena venues have opened in London, for example Wembley (12,200 fully seated) that with the 70% increase in tube capacity can easily cope with the patronage. In addition of course we have the O2 and Indigo venues at The Dome.
14. We have yet to see a business plan for the operation of the proposed Arena. A year ago we were told by the applicant that a full capacity (12,500) audience was needed 100 times per year for the Arena to be commercially viable. We note from the latest application material that a capacity crowd has now been redefined to mean either 60% or 70% of the total possible. Apart from having to do so to suit the Transport Plan, surely this raises doubts over the commerciality of the project and raises questions as to why the Arena should be so large in the first place.
15. Is there any reason why Croydon needs yet another night club? Problems with existing clubs have recently led to the Council reviewing its licensing procedure.
16. We could find no mention in the new material of off-site law, order and crowd control nor emergency evacuation arrangements. Who will undertake this? We have been
made very aware of how overstretched the Croydon Police force already is at peak
times.
17. Regarding the quality of design, it appears to be more oppressive greyness and glass with which Croydon has been architecturally overburdened since the 1960s.
18. Although this applicant’s scheme is preferred and promoted by the London Borough of Croydon, at no time has the Council undertaken any proper public consultation to ask the people of Croydon whether this is what they want. In fact we learnt about the
original planning application by chance and were sent details of this latest application apparently because we have formally objected to the Council’s Compulsory Purchase Order to the site. Notification did not come from the London Borough of Croydon but a third party. For a development of this size and with the impact that it is likely to have on Croydon for many years to come, it begs the question why the public’s opinion has not been carefully canvassed and why the Council so willingly granted the original planning application (now the subject of the call-in) apparently without any viability or impact assessment.
We take heart from the UDP Inspector’s Report that said an Arena on this site was not
essential.
We are grateful to the applicant, Arrowcroft, for inviting us to meet to discuss our concerns about their latest development plans. We did this on 12 July 2007 but regret we received no satisfactory answers to the above and other matters raised.
Steve Collins
Chairman, Canning and Clyde Road Residents Association
Also on behalf of Park Hill Residents Association, Morland Park Residents Association,H.O.M.E Residents Association and the former Croydon Society Transport Group."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)